Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire
as to zeal, persecuting the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. Philippians 3:6 NASB
Blameless – If we were to use the Josh McDowell technique of “Evidence That Demands a Verdict,” we would have to say that Paul was either a liar, a lunatic or saying something that we can’t imagine to be true. We could throw in the extra possibility that he was simply theologically in error, but since we want to hold that his words are inspired, that would be a hard one to defend. Do you think Paul was a liar? Was he telling the truth when he said he was blameless according to the standard of righteousness found in the Torah? The Greek word isn’t ambiguous. It’s amemptos, literally “without fault.” The same word is used to describe Zacharias and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6) and the divine intention for every believer (Philippians 2:15). Obviously, human beings can be amemptos. (By the way, the word is only used five times in the New Testament and none of these are about Yeshua). The Hebrew parallel is naqiy, “innocent,” “clean” or “free from blame” (e.g. Genesis 44:10 and Job 22:19). In either language, this is not something we readily attribute to ourselves. So, once again, was Paul lying? Was Luke? It seems that answer must be “No.” Whatever amemptos means, Paul and Luke are using it correctly. Men and women not only should be blameless, they can be blameless.
Wait! What about “in sin did my mother conceive me” and all that Augustinian-Lutheran guilt and sinful nature stuff? Will we quickly rush to the solution that Paul is describing himself before he realized his true spiritual condition and his need for Christ? Was Paul just delusional? He thought he was blameless but he was really blinded by his sinful nature. But what about Luke? Were Zacharias and Elizabeth also insane? Maybe we need to rethink where this is going. Maybe our idea of “blameless” has been influenced by factors we don’t find in the Scriptures.
What does it mean to be blameless? The Hebrew suggests that naqiy means free of liability for an offense (innocent). The word is used to describe proper conduct in normal life as well as ritual purity. It involves both ethical and moral immunity. In other words, it is the human condition that does not need forgiveness. But didn’t Paul himself argue that everyone sins and deserves punishment? Didn’t Paul proclaim that everyone needs forgiveness? Then how is it possible for him to say that he was blameless? Perhaps there is a difference between the righteousness found within the Torah and the idea of sin expressed in Romans 3:23. Could it be that even if I keep all of the Torah I am still in need of a savior? Could it be that my blameless state with regard to executing God’s instructions doesn’t actually have anything to do with my need for grace? Could it be that Torah-keeping is not an alternative to God’s grace but rather directions for living that any man can actually fulfill? Then I could this day proclaim that I too am blameless as to the Law, but I still stand in need of His favor. Maybe, just maybe, we have so mixed up the needed distinctions that we no longer believe men can actually do what God wants. Wouldn’t that be a convenient excuse?
Topical Index: blameless, amemptos, naqiy, Philippians 3:6, Romans 3:23, sinful nature
“Wouldn’t that be a convenient excuse?”
So convenient that we don’t even recognize it as an excuse anymore. It’s become doctrine.
Brother, your point here is a bit confused.
Paul’s point in Philippians 3 is that all of his superlatives, all of his own personal claims to excellence that he could have used to “4 … have confidence in the flesh…” he considered to be “loss”, zemia, in v.7 and “dung”, skubalon, in v.8.
Zemia refers to a condition of “loss” as the result of damage. Acts 27:10,21 provide perfect examples of this. “10 And said unto them, Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage (zemia), not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives…21 But after long abstinence Paul stood forth in the midst of them, and said, Sirs, ye should have hearkened unto me, and not have loosed from Crete, and to have gained this harm and loss (zemia).” Paul associates their loss with injury – “hurt” in v.10 and “harm” in v.21 are the same word for damage. They had loss because they had damage that rendered the ship and cargo useless or “loss.”
Skubalon refers to household refuse. Specifically, it refers to the human dung collected from the household in chamber pots. Skubalon was used to also refer to the excrement of animals as well in Josephus in Jewish War.
Paul preferred “8 …the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord…”
He preferred to “9 … be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.”
He preferred the righteousness which is through the faith about Christ, which is from God by faith, “13 … forgetting those things which are behind…” Those things which are behind are those things he listed in v.5-6, that he reckoned to be “loss” and “dung.”
Paul and you and all the other saints are blameless because of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection on our behalf. We are, in fact, called saints, hagios, the holy ones, not because of anything we have done or achieved but because He has made us holy. Hagiazo, the verb form of the adjective, hagios, is used 29 times in the New Testament. In every passage that hagiazo describes the sanctification of the saints, it is in the passive voice. Sanctification, present tense salvation, is undeniably something done to the saints (just like the past and future aspects of salvation). Never once is it ever used to describe the saint doing something to sanctify himself.
Paul rejected the application of the Law to him in the circumcision and in his racial heritage as a Hebrew. He rejected his status under the Law as a Pharisee. He rejected his zeal in persecuting the Church and his righteousness produced by his performance of the Law.
In Romans 3:20-22, he preferred “22 … the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe.” He preferred it because “20 … by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.”
The Torah or the doctrines of a church defined by its creed or the rules of ethics and morality that anyone formulates for themselves or someone else only give us “the knowledge of sin” of our failure to perform sinlessly. Romans 5-8 make it abundantly clear. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, to whom was given the ministry of the mystery, plainly declared in Romans 7 that he was powerless to eradicate covetousness from his life. And the Torah is what made him aware of his failure to obey. In fact, the Torah, according to Romans 7:6-9, caused his covetousness, i.e. “8 … wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.”
Paul preferred the righteousness of Christ that is procured by faith. It is far better and more steadfast than my own righteousness. And it is by grace.
I enjoy thoroughly your notes on the Jewish perspective. And I have profited by them. But on this issue I believe you are mistaken.
I agree with you that the action of being made holy is the work of YHWH, not of our own merit. I also agree that Paul argues that no self-made righteousness will produce reconciliation with YHWH. So, essentially we are on the same path until you get to “Paul rejected the application of the Law to him . . .” I find that Scripture is quite clear about the usefulness and the necessity of Torah, not as a mean to accomplish favor with God but as a determining mark of fellowship and obedience to God. So, I find that Paul completely embraces Torah as a way of life while simultaneously rejecting the contention of Jewish legalism that Torah produces favor with God. It is absolutely imperative that we carefully distinguish these two. The Church has not done a very good job of this, and consequently finds itself in the awkward position of advocating the abandonment of Torah while claiming that we need to have high moral and ethical behavior (by whose standard?). You are correct is stating that the doctrines of the Church claim rejection of Torah, but so would Paul if Torah obedience is going to be the basis of deliverance. However, the Church throws out the standard of practice which reflects the very character of God when it discards Torah without recognizing that it was NEVER intended to provide reconciliation.
So, what about the “rest of Paul’s story?” This is not “the end..-It is only the beginning. He was a “good man” according to the law. Blameless, upright, moral, just, – He was not only a Jew, but He also was a Pharisee, and born of the very special tribe of Benjamin. This man had credentials. It has been said, educationally, Paul (formerly known as Saul) had the equivalent of a triple PhD.
Born into the right family, wonderfully educated, and a zeal to please G-d. Paul, (we would say)- had it goin’ on. He was climbing the ladder of success, only to find it was leaning against the wrong building.
Paul did “think” he was doing the will of G-d. He didn’t just go out and persecute the church on a whim,-he was a man with a mission. To stamp out “those people”- those “little Christs,” those Christians. Persecution of the church of G-d is nothing new, -is it? But G-d said, (just love those three words) -“I will build my church.” Whose church is it, y’all? His. Whose gonna build it? He is. – That’s what He said. And if He said it..- brothers, -it’s gonna happen. Dipso-fatso. -“just the fact’s m’am..”
Paul needed someone to intervene in His life. He was zealous (and that’s a good thing..)-, he was just pointed in the wrong direction, -that’s all. His idea of righteousness needed some correction, and G-d provided him with the necessary guidance and direction.
I wasn’t there when Paul encountered Christ, but Paul sure was. There was a life-change in him, no doubt about it. He received a new nature and a new name. What a change! What made the difference? From blasting the church to building the church, from harming folks to healing folks, from hating to loving- Paul met Somebody- and heart-change happened.
I don’t know Who this was, but it sure turned him inside out, and upside down. What on this green planet could do such a thing? Paul, himself writes about this in his later letters.. – read the Book, – “it’s in there..”
This same “blameless” man later wrote these words: -“Oh wretched man that I am..- who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” This (formerly?) “blameless” man has come to realize and recognize, he has a need. “Who shall deliver me?” he asked. Excellent question brother Paul, – a Deliverer maybe?
It’s sure hard to save someone who does not recognize his need to be saved. What was the prayer Elohim heard and answered?- G-d be merciful to me, “the sinner?”
Paul later wrote these words..”for all have sinned..” but Paul..- according to the righteousness of the law you were blameless? You lived a life of high moral standards and ate a healthy diet of kosher-only foods, attended synagogue with the family, had the Torah memorized, wore the right clothes, hung with the right people, were so well educated and connected with the right people- how can you say, “O wretched man that I am?” What is up with that?
What did Paul see on the day that changed his life? Why did Paul (one of the greatest Rabbi’s who ever lived) write these words? “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2.2) And these words..- “for me, to live..Christ -to die..gain.” (Philippians 1.21)
What was it about the crucifixion and resurrection of (the) Christ that changed the life-mission and focus of this “blameless” Pharisee?
Thank you, brother, for your well considered reply.
Paul is referring to more than just justification. He is also talking about sanctification here as well, i.e. our way of life after being reconciled to God.
We are made blameless by faith in the work of Christ on the cross and we remain blameless by faith in the work of Christ on the cross.
That is all I have to say. It is not generally a well received message, but it needed to be said. Thank you for your response. And thank you for the lessons that you are providing. May God richly bless you.
Dear Richard,
For many years I was taught this very thing “we are made blameless by faith in the work of Christ on the cross and we remain blameless by faith in the work of Christ in the cross”, and I thought I knew what that meant. But as I began noticing what this looked like, the pictures and scenarios in the snapshots of the lives of those who said this was an experiential reality in their own personal lives, I saw people who, after decades of saying they were believers in Christ, live lifestyles no different from the masses around them. The only thing separating them from others was church attendance. No desire for ministry, no love for anyone unlike them, racial and political prejudice, clanging brass cymbals…sanctification was determined by the denomination, which was constantly changing what sanctificatio
Sorry, I’m using IPad and it’s just not the same as computer touch-typing!
What I am saying is that without God’s guidelines of instruction, no one can know or have the mind of Christ and the living it out is subjective to the individuals’ or the denomination’s idea of what is holy and acceptable. This appears to present issues that are incongruous with the teachings of Christ, which bear out the heart of God spoken throughout the entirety of Scriptures. We must be able to reconcile both old and new testaments, especially since Christ and Paul taught from the old. There is no division in His holy and sanctified Word,praise His set apart Name.
May I add, welcome to this blog, enjoyed reading your comments.
The law was (and is continuously) our “schoolmaster” to lead us to Christ. The law (Torah-instructions from G-d) is a white-hot spotlight searching the inner man and revealing those things within that need to be eradicated. Light is (simply put) is that which reveals.
When we visit the dentist (and I hope we do) a white spotlight is applied to our open mouths to reveal the rot and decay within. (Look ma!-no cavities!). We must continuously and consciously undergo “light therapy” to reveal the sin which so easily enters into our lives. We must expose ourselves to the instructions of the word of G-d that sin may be revealed, confessed and cleansed.
This is the process of sanctification. Holiness is both imputed and imparted. Begun at the point of salvation, (given) and then as we begin our pilgrim journey with Him,- He further reveals both attitudes and actions that need to go. We (all) are being transformed into the image of the Son. The word of G-d is as necessary to those who have been and are regenerated by the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Breath) as our blood is to our bodies. Without the words of G-d we are doomed to failure. No way can we live this life of Christ on our own. We must, we must (both) heed and hearken to what G-d has to say to us in His holy word. Yeshua said (are we listening?)- the words I speak unto you- they are breath (spirit) and they are life.- What part does the Bible play in your life? Do we spend more time reading the newspaper or watching the box of lies (formerly known as t.v.) that we do with our noses buried in the word of G-d? Yes, we do- for all we like sheep (with a brain the size of a walnut) have gone astray. Ever seen a trained sheep? Me either- not a nice thing to say about someone, -is it?.. Not nice, but necessary..
What is the function of the law? To reveal sin. What separates us from G-d? Only one thing. Sin. Iniquity. Twistedness. Once sin has been revealed, is there a remedy? Yes, there is. Once again, provision has been made. G-d has provided Himself, a Lamb. G-d was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. Atonement- “at-one-ment” has been made by the sinless blood of the Lamb.
“Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour.” Yeshua too, was a man with a mission. To give Himself, a ransom for sin. To take upon Himself the sin-debt of all who have ever lived or will live. He took my hell, and paid in full to ransom me and to set me free from the curse of Adam, for in Adam all die, but in Christ- all shall be made alive.
Death, hell and the grave have all been defeated. The victory of Christ was (and is) complete. We are now today His body, to do what pleases our Father as we are now the children of G-d. This is who we are and what we do. We live to please Him and live lives of obedience to His instructions, written and revealed in His book of instruction, our Bible.
Again, “He said”- I will build my church. This gives me great comfort, knowing, dear friends- this is the work He continues to do. We can be “laborers together” with Him. This is a great privilege to serve with Him. Great joy is ours when we know we are in right-relationship with Him and with our neighbors, those we come in contact with day-by-day.
Very exciting days we are living in today. -Agreed? Isn’t it beautiful to belong to the Good Shepherd? Blessed be the name of the LORD. Amein.
Philippians 3:2 Beware the dogs
Hmmm
“dogs” was a term of abuse applied by Jews to pagans and which Paul ironically applies to non christian Jews here.
Of course we can’t forget that Paul was responsible for killing countless innocent Jewish followers of the Way.
Until Paul had his religious conversion.
Most of us would never consider killing an innocent person, and only a sociopath could kill innocent people because of their religious beliefs.
Paul’s statements are often “often over the top,” but if he is blameless, I’m a saint 🙂
oops, that was Philippinas 3:2, Beware the dogs…
Of course, one of my favorite scenes in Matthew is 15:22-28 where Jesus uses the dog metaphor in reference to an old gentile woman:
Matt 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, [thou] Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
Matt 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
Matt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matt 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
Matt 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not fair to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.
Mat 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.
Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great [is] thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
“But as I began noticing what this looked like, the pictures and scenarios…”
So now, the Word of God itself isn’t the authority that you require for understanding truth – your authority is your own observations of personal experience.
And even worse, you have to resort to argumentum ad hominem to make your refutation, i.e. you reject what is presented because of failings in the person presenting it. This certainly seems like a passive aggressive attack on myself – that I must also have “No desire for ministry, no love for anyone unlike them, racial and political prejudice, clanging brass cymbals”.
Brother, that should cause you take another look at what you are saying. In the presence of the cross, there is no room for boasting about our own works or demeaning other saints because their works are less.
Again and for the last time, thank you for your response. And thank you for the lessons that you are providing. May God richly bless you.
You may have the last word to close what has become an ugly exchange. “That thou doest, do quickly.”
Perhaps it’s not exactly my place here, but I do know Mary’s heart since she has been a reader for many years. Your comments to “Brother, that should cause you . . .” seem a bit misplaced. Mary is only commenting that there are many, many “Christians” in name only, professing to believe (Greek – given propositional assent to) in Jesus but without the demonstrable life to back it up. It is perfectly appropriate, in fact Scriptural, to discern those who are faithful to the life in the Messiah from those who merely tout the name. God exhorts us to know the company we keep.
It is my responsibility to listen to God’s word and work to reconcile this with what I know of Him and what He reveals to me through others, not to simply dismiss the statement as incompatible with my present beliefs. The Augustinian doctrine of original sin and the consequent idea of sinful nature inherited by birth is simply incompatible with the Hebrew worldview, although it fits rather nicely into Platonism. Since the authors of the texts were all Hebrews or adherents to the God of Israel, I take it that this means I have to submit my conceptualization to theirs. After all, they wrote it, not me. And that means asking the serious questions about how the Church arrived at this doctrine, who introduced it and why. That is the educational purpose of this community. The rest, as Akiva said, is commentary.
St. Francis was right. We would not need the words of the gospel if we observed the results in the lives of His followers.
For what it is worth, I did not notice that it was Mary who had written that comment until after I had posted my response. But I wasn’t responding to any specific personality but to the content of the post. My apologies to Mary for misidentifying her.
I don’t know Mary so I don’t know Mary’s heart or yours for that matter.
Just out of curiosity, though, I am curious to know what your comment, and Mary’s, would be about the Corinthians. Talk about folks “who merely tout(ed) the name” and who were extremely careless about “the company” they were keeping. The Corinthian church were certainly a fellowship of individuals “without the demonstrable life to back it up”, both individually and corporately.
These folks were sectarian, worldly minded, carnal and grossly immature, “puffed up for one against another”, practiced fornication and such that even shameful to the pagans among whom they lived, were involved in lawsuits against saints about secular matters, were careless about the spiritual well-being of their brothers and sisters, “lust(ed) after evil things”, seemingly had a completely distorted understanding of spiritual gifts, certainly had disorderly corporate worship practices, who grossly violated the act of communion by publicly practicing selfishness and gluttony, and disregard for poor saints to the point that they denied food to those very poor persons, etc. and etc. and etc. The list of their failings in doctrine and practice go on and on and on and on.
And yet, he calls them saints, holy ones!!!! And more!!!! 1:2 – “2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” These people, who certainly lacked “the demonstrable life to back it up”, he called the ekklesia, the called out ones. They were called out of the world, but there was no demonstrable difference in their lives.
But, however, and moreover, he, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declared that they “are sanctified in Christ Jesus…with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” He recognized them, with all their practice of various kinds of sin, as the same as he did all the others who did demonstrate the life of faith. He reproved and corrected them on their specific defective doctrine and practice issues but he recognized them and associated them with the Body of Christ in identical status with the others.
But in 6:11, he says about them, “11 … but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” He declares they were completely washed, sanctified, and justified in the past with the present result that they remained washed, sanctified, and justified in the present. That is according to the aorist tense used for each of those verbs.
What an astonishing thing to say about a group of saints who failed to grasp the truth due to their deplorable spiritual immaturity, who practiced wildly inappropriate corporate worship, and who practiced and tolerated practices of gross immorality that would even shame the pagans in their own religion that was characterized by sexual promiscuity as a form of worship.
Worst of all, they seemed to have lost their comprehension of even the Gospel itself as he defines in 15:3,4. The issue of the resurrection even seems to be confused for these saints in chapter 15. It was so confused and involved false teaching that even denied, in effect, the deity of Christ. And then he expresses his disgust with their shamelessness, “34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.” They were ignorant about God and their lives clearly, irrefutably demonstrated their spiritual condition.
He started this letter with 1:4, “4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ.” And then he closes this letter to these saints, these holy ones, who demonstrate a truly disgusting assortment of sin and ignorance about the truth, with the words in 16:23,24, “23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. 24 My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.” Their washing, sanctification, and justification (the present state of these gifts based upon the completed accomplishment of them in the past) are ALL the result of grace, irrespective to the character, or lack thereof, of their behavior. “”4 … for the grace of God which is given (them and us) by Jesus Christ” is the only reason for their and our own sainthood.
So, “1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
I don’t really care what Augustine said about things. I certainly couldn’t care less about Plato’s philosophy.
As regarding St. Francis of Assisi and his widely regarded quote, I wonder what that Hebrew, Paul, would have said. I wonder if it might have been something like this, “14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
Please note Paul’s response is to quote Isaiah 52:7, a Hebrew perspective. In both the Isaiah passage and the quote from Romans 10, the emphasis is on the spoken word. It’s what we would call evangelism, preaching, prophesying the Gospel to people, not that flaccid excuse for it that is widely claimed. People get saved by hearing the Gospel, not by watching Christians. They might get interested by what they see, but they get saved by what they hear.
“Awake to righteousness and sin not…” 1 Cor. 15:34a
Once we’ve heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the good news about how God the Father has made us saints, has made us righteous, has sanctifed us (set us apart) etc etc, (we’ve woken up to what He’s done to us and for us) we then are exhorted to ‘sin not’, to ‘..lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called.’ Eph 4:1
After salvation, after acceptance and deliverance in the Beloved Yeshua, we then need to behave in such a way which pleases our Father. Hearing is involved again. We hear the instructions (Torah?) regarding right behaviour, behaviour which does not ‘miss the mark’. We learn what attitudes and actions please our Father. Our character undergoes radical change.
Shalom Richard,
I am a little behind in the conversation here and I do not know if you are planning on continuing, (it seems that you may be done in regard to some of your responses) even though you said, “that is all I have to say,” but you responded again.
In regard to Paul and the Corithians. In Acts 18:7-19: And he left there and went to the house of a man named Titus Justus, a worshipper of God. His house was next door to the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corithians hearing Paul believed and were baptized. And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.” And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of of God among them. But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him before the tribunal, saying, “This man is persuading people to worship God contrary to the law.” But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrong doing or vicious crime, O Jews, I would have a reason to accept your complaint. But since it is a mater of questions about words and names and your own law, see to it yourselves. I refuse to be a judge of these things.” And he drove them from the tribunal. And they all seized Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him in front of the tribunal. But Gallio paid no attention to any of this. After this, Paul stayed many days longer and took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchrea he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow.
The Lord himself told Paul in a vision that “for I have many in this city who are my people.” His continuing ministry there was based on this vision and direction from the Lord. He emphasized in his letter to the Corithians, what the Lord himself said, at the beginning of his one year and six months ministry time there. It seems to me that his emphasis on who they belonged to ‘my people’ was a foundation to lead them back to proper living/conduct with each other, and their witness to the world around them! The church has a tendency to over emphasize the believers position in Christ and their relationship to Christ, by grace through faith. At the same time, because of their rejection of God’s instructions/Torah, they do not know how to show people how to live out the life of grace and demonstrate to the world their position in Christ.
You never addressed Skip’s comments on what the writers of the Apostolic Writings or as some others call the NT, and the references in the TaNaK about people being blameless. I do not understand why you felt there was an ugly exchange made to you Richard? Disagreement in some of the things you wrote, but I do not believe there was a maelvolent intent on their part toward you. We have on this blog a very mature group of brothers and sisters who are open to correction and direction change. We are on a journey together, and if you felt that it was them, against you… I believe you misunderstood the exchange. Blessings to you and yours!
Peace and grace to you Richard,
My premise is that sanctification is lived out through obedience. Obedience to what?…His Law, His commands which are not burdensome, grievous or unable to be lived out. For the foreigner (those not natives of Israel), the transition may include a learning curve, but obedience is expected, none the less. Read the Scriptures:
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you Ex 12:49;
Lev 16:29; Lev 17:12, 13; the Word has many references such as peoples, and nations that live according to the statutes of His Kingdom and not a mixture of their pagan culture and His Ways.
Listen, I am a sojourner as we all are that are looking for the City made without human hands. We have not made ourselves and the One who made us is the One who knows what and how to live this life with His pleasure in our hearts.
Of course, there may be a learning curve and only the grace and kindness of God gives us the opportunity to repent and return to Him via His pathway. His commands are referred to as Words and we know Christ is also referred to as the Word. The Law brings light, order and peace with God and man (except with those who have been set free from the Law). Otherwise we have chaos.
We don’t always get it perfectly, especially when we are newborns, green, unlearned or improperly taught. BUT, we have a heart for God and want to exalt Him as King. I think that was Paul’s purpose of pointing out the horrible sin in the Corinthian church. Not to give God glory because of the sin and cheapen His grace, but to point them to the perfect Law that was able to keep the wrath of God from being poured out in judgment. Did Paul not warn of having to discipline them if they did not change their ways and live right…obedient to God? We can never dream up or fess up enough to provide our own brand of sanctification. The highway of holiness is God’s path that is made bright through the Word. Psalm 119:105
Shalom dear Richard
Good point. Significant to what you say, Skip, is to read ‘naqiy’ in the Proto-Semitic symbols (the oldest pictorial ‘Hebrew’ writing system of OT times; cf my new website for details). It portrays: ‘descendant(s)’, ‘go up / rise’, ‘active hand’ – which lends itself for the following interpretation: ‘your descendants will go up (to the Temple, to God) because of what you did / how you acted’.
Modern psychology has attested that children do after what they saw their parents do; they follow their life, not necessarily their words. If someone’s children and grandchildren follow him in worshipping God, it is because of what they saw in his real life: ‘naqiy’.
(It has everything to do with hypocrisy, or rather: lack of it. As per your title. That also has to do with the reason why David was forgiven and Manasseh not.)
Paul could say: follow my example, in the way I follow Jesus. He did not need to say: follow my words, but not what I did. It also has to do with being ‘echad. But that yet another chapter… 🙂